Unsuccessful Fraud Suit Arose Out of Beats’ $3.2 Billion Sale To Apple. This post actually is an update to the result reached in Monster, LLC v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.App.5th 1214 (2d Dist., Div. 7 June 21, 2017) [our No. 14 Top Decision of 2017, discussed in our recent December 24, 2017 post]. […]
Year End Wrap-Up: Mike & Marc’s Top 20 Decisions In 2017 Part 1 of 2 – 2017 Saw Decisions On Wide Spectrum Of Fees/Costs Issues. As we have done in past years, wishing all readers the happiest of holidays, we now present our top 20 published decisions from California appellate courts, the United States
$68,382.38 In Costs Not Allowed To Defense Is The Upshot. In Smith v. Sharp Healthcare, Case No. D069206 (4th Dist., Div. 1 Dec. 22, 2017) (unpublished), plaintiff lost a case with both FEHA and non-FEHA claims, with the defense filing a costs memorandum seeking $68,382.38 after plaintiff rejected a CCP § 998 offer of
$52,340 Fee Award Recommendations By Appellate Commissioner Are Adopted. When it comes to awarding fees for appellate work, the Ninth Circuit refers the matters to the Appellate Commissioner under Ninth Circuit Rule 39-1.9. These Commissioners develop an expertise in resolving fee-application and fee-litigation work. In Vortex Marine Construction v. Grimm, No. 15-72258 (9th
Plaintiff Did Not Prevail On His Monetary Claims, And No Injunction/Declaratory Relief Found Against Defendants. After obtaining a jury’s favorable answer to whether plaintiff’s physical condition was a substantial motivating reason for his termination, the jurors found against plaintiff on whether the conduct was a substantial factor in causing harm to plaintiff. Plaintiff then
Denial Of Costs Is Not A Sanction Prescribed For Failing To Meet And Confer. By now, most California litigators are well aware of Code of Civil Procedure section 430.41, which requires that a demurring party must meet and confer in person or by telephone with a party whose pleading is the subject of a
Attorney-Client Privilege Redactions Impliedly Waived In Malicious Prosecution Case. Jensen v. Charon Solutions, Inc., Case No. B276050 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 20, 2017) (unpublished) is a situation which demonstrates that redacted fee substantiation, even based on attorney-client privileged objections, may give way to due process rights where fees are recoverable as damages. What
Individual Defendants Did Not Gain Their Main Litigation Objective, Given No Adjudication Of Alter Egos Issues Too Boot. In Fedco Construction, Inc. v. International Fidelity Ins. Co., Case Nos. A146999/A148407 (1st Dist., Div. 5 Dec. 19, 2017) (unpublished), alter ego defendants (Individual Defendants) for developers were dismissed on a directed verdict after alter ego
Appellant Failed To Raise The Winning Argument For Reversal. Horsley v. Tourmaline Real Estate Partners, LLC, Case No. B277926 (2d Dist., Div. 3 Dec. 19, 2017) (unpublished) is a lesson in being careful what you plead in your complaint prayer for relief, because it might trigger a bilateral fee-shifting statute. Plaintiff pled for
Case Was Extensively Litigated, Justifying This Level Of Fee Recovery. Home Depot. 2003. Santa Fe, New Mexico. John Margolies, photographer. Library of Congress. In First City Pacific, Inc. v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Case No. B268604 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Dec. 19, 2017) (unpublished), sublessor (tenant to a ground
